Did you know that back in 1970, the seven major international oil corporations were sure they owned all the Middle East’s known reserves? Within five years, all tthe Middle Eastern countries had nationalized their own oil thereby taking ownership - and prices have escalated ever since.

By estimates of about five years ago, for China and India to reach about a quarter of the level of U.S. oil consumption, world output would have to rise by forty-four percent. If we talk about those countries reaching the half-way mark in say, 2015, global production would have to double. . . .is that possible?

Before I end my mini-dissertation, remember this anecdotal point that FDR (and Churchill) used an embargo as a tool to reign in Japan pre-1941, and it lead to war. This anecdotal point being that oil influences foreign policy and can have influence on destiny.

The U.S. today, may only import about fifteen percent of its oil from the Middle East, but as oil is a most fungible commodity, that is quite irrelevant. What is relevant, is what's available on the global market at any given day (even hourly). Any disruption of any sort in the Middle East causes main consumers to compete with the U.S. in buying oil from our main sources (Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, and so on).

Concluding my report for today, I call your attention to the Carter Doctrine which states we will have U.S. military assets deployed to protect that oil supply and its flow through the sea lanes known as the Persian Gulf (Arabian Sea).

This continual military presence is costly and I see no reason why China and India should get a free pass under the protective umbrella of Uncle Sam and the U.S. tax payers’ dime.

All the Chinese have to do is install a minimum wage of $2 an hour and their economy will surpass the world, so let's not make too big a deal of THAT.

or at least apparently not, nor do they have large voting blocks who are obsessed with a certain smallish state in the Levant. Contra the Judeo-Christo-Islamo-Marxist West, Chinese and Indian communal mythologies aren't based on universalism. They also have not had the dubiously rewarding experience of being world hegemon. All this gives them negotiating space the US doesn't have. Combine this with the dynamism that the writer mentioned and you have a pretty effective force.

That said, both India and China have large Muslim populations, and hence an important cultural and political connection to the Middle East and possible fears of terrorist connections. But, it seems to me, that so far the Chinese have been pretty successful in isolating the Uyghurs. The only place in the Middle-East where there is sustained support for the Uyghur cause is in Turkey, and that amongst a relatively small group of pan-Turanian Turks, a portion of the Turkish population not very likely to form alliances with non-Turkish Islamist groups anytime soon. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

It has a hands off policy when doing business and acquiring commodities. They treat despicable tyrants and long-standing democracies alike, they there only to do business. For anyone who's been paying attention, China has been on a globe-trotting tour of oil and mineral acquisition. Here in Canada they've recently started buying oil interest from companies out west in a big way.

Btw has anyone else seen the report the Russians came out with on the Cheonan?

"Russian Investigators Say Cheonan Sank by a Sea Mine Explosion"

India's Hindus majority fear and loathe Muslim with a passion. Ethnic riots and bombings that happen from time to time in India stem from those deep mistrust. Also, India are seen by many lacking backbone and sucking up to any world superpowers (USSR then, USA now), They don't have much street credit in being a honest middleman in that region. China maybe a suitable candidate, but they are too wise to get tangle up in that mess, as their track record show.

"Rather, the U.S. would be wise to celebrate China and India's ascendance into the region, because the future energy needs of both could actually lift some of the burden from America's strained shoulders...Most Americans are sick and tired of acting as the world's policemen, and some simply want to withdraw all together. Being the world's primary guardian requires lots of manpower and lots of taxpayer money, and after three decades of filling that role, Americans want to cut their losses and stop spending money on what many deem to be hopeless ventures."

Para 1)

So great powers welcome the ascendance of other great powers because it increases the potential for burden-sharing?

Para 2)

The mass opinion of Americans determines American foreign policy?

Just a few random questions.

If oil is getting scarcer I most sincerely doubt that the US will want the Chinese to sit on a big supply of it. Just as that oil became nationalized in the 70's it could become Chinese oil real quickly through coercion or outright military occupation.
For Japan I'd say that China controlling the Middle East would pose an existential threat, so any movement in that direction would force the Japanese to militarize and (probably) to become a nuclear power.
The Chinese controlling the Persian Gulf might not be quite so bad for the Indians, but considering the ongoing border dispute and the build up of naval forces around the Malacca Straits I'd say that they wouldn't be positive to it either.
In short I think the US relinquishing control of the Persian Gulf would turn a tinder box into a forest fire.
As for ideas that China, India and Japan would cooperate in keeping the Middle East stable I just say - pleeeaseeeee...